The Watchtower Society and Corporate Manslaughter

nicolaou

As the news item posted below reports, the UK government is considering the introduction of a new offence of corporate manslaughter.

I wonder how this will affect the minds of the Watchtower legal dept' as they try to cover their masters 'corporate' asses once again.

While still holding out against any meaningful reform of their fatal 'no blood transfusion' policy they will now have to justify themselves as the originators, promoters and enforcers of said policy while simutaneously attempting to absolve themselves of any responsibility of the consequences thereof.

As the report puts it:

Quote:
Campaigners in favour of the change say the existing manslaughter laws make it difficult to prosecute large companies because of the difficulty in identifying a senior manager as the "controlling mind" responsible for the death.

We should work on this.

Nic'

UK set for corporate manslaughter law
8.40AM BST, 20 May 2003

Home Secretary David Blunkett is set to unveil plans to introduce a new offence of corporate manslaughter.

The proposed legislation would make companies accountable for deaths caused through gross management negligence.

Details of the Government's proposals are due to emerge during a ministerial response to an amendment tabled to the Criminal Justice Bill, which is currently in its report stage in the Commons.

The Bill is being tabled by Labour backbencher Andrew Dismore.

According to research by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, around 350 people are killed in work-related accidents each year.

Victims of major accidents such as rail crashes have pressed the Government to fulfil its 1997 commitment to introduce a corporate manslaughter offence.

Campaigners in favour of the change say the existing manslaughter laws make it difficult to prosecute large companies because of the difficulty in identifying a senior manager as the "controlling mind" responsible for the death.

Under the proposals, directors of corporations can be found guilty of corporate killing if a management failure is identified as a cause of death and if that failure constitutes conduct that falls below a required standard.

Ahead of Mr Blunkett's announcement Mr Dismore, MP for Hendon, said: "It is a long overdue change in the law."

"All the recent disasters point to the need for a new law to ensure company directors take their safety responsibilities as seriously as their desire to make profit."

The need for a corporate manslaughter Bill has been highlighted by Novelist Nina Bawden, whose husband was killed in the Potters Bar rail crash.

She said Jarvis - the subcontractor responsible for track maintenance in the area - appeared to have blamed the accident on "little green men from Mars".

Anne Jones, who has campaigned for the change since her son Simon was killed on his first day at work in Shoreham Docks in 1998, is sceptical about the Bill.

"When I hear that the Government say they intend to enact the Bill they said that five years ago," she said.

"We are tired of hearing, both in face to face meetings and in letters from various government departments, various ministers - 'we will enact the law of corporate killing when Parliamentary time allows'.

"That is the biggest cop-out on earth because Parliamentary time never allows it."

"But they can always find Parliamentary time for their pet projects."

original story

re-posted as original thread appears to have gone AWOL

Scully

Very interesting, Nic. Thank you.

Love, Scully

shamus

The UK seems to be ahead on most legal matters... good for them!

IslandWoman

The Watchtower is the legal arm of the Jehovah's Witnesses, a religion.

What does this possible new law have to do with religion? Remember the JW blood issue is based on their interpretation of the clear commands in the Bible to not eat blood. Their interpretation may not agree with that of others but government does not have the right to dictate religious dogma, does it?

IW

ballistic

UK seems to be ahead on most legal matters

Well, I dont know about Canada, but USA certainly seems to be able to put people away for long enough unlike us in the UK.

little witch

It would seem this is a national law, if passed.

Since the tower is in America, I don't think they could prosecute. Even in the most awful circumstances. Does international law provide for going after a corporation in another country?

Stephanus

They could still go after the UK branch. IW, although wrong, of course, in her usual defence of the Brooklyn murder squad, is right in that any court cases will have to establish the Watchtower's ID as a corporation that hides its commercial activities behind religious trappings. Would make a wonderful precedent for subsequent cases!

nicolaou

The Watchtower is the legal arm of the Jehovah's Witnesses, a religion.
What does this possible new law have to do with religion? Remember the JW blood issue is based on their interpretation of the clear commands in the Bible to not eat blood. Their interpretation may not agree with that of others but government does not have the right to dictate religious dogma, does it?
IW

A new law will often establish legal principles upon which further legislation is built. If this new law of Corporate Manslaughter is passed cases wil be brought to court that will set 'touchstones' for the future. For example, if a corporation - through giving poor safety advice - causes the deaths of dozens of employees, would you not expect it to be sued into oblivion? Wouldn't you also agree that those who formed and promoted the safety policy should be held personally accountable? The Watchtower does more than give poor advice. Through the pages of its endless publications and through its hundreds of meetings and conventions each year it constantly reinforces it's unique 'No Blood Transfusion' medical policy. It issues 'Medical Alert' cards to it's members but conveniently omits reference to itself thereon. Through repeated coercion and threat of shunning and familial estrangement it enforces this policy to the point of death! Okay IslandWoman, the Watchtower is not a corporation - it's a charity [!] but that's just a distinction without a difference. Wait for the law to be passed. Wait for the principles to be laid down. Then wait and see the 'Blood Issue' become a matter of conscience. Nic'

IslandWoman

Hi Nicolaou,

My point was that JWs are a religion and their religious beliefs are based on their interpretation of the Bible.

The Watchtower is already well on its way to making the blood issue a conscience matter, if this new law speeds that up I am certainly in favor of that.

I just think that too many times on this board we view the Watchtower only as a corporate entity, forgetting it is very much a religious entity as well and will under the law defend itself both on religious and corporate grounds. They are fighting what they consider is a religious war against the world and Satan, they use the legal tools they have and here in the U.S. freedom of religion is something which is almost sacrosanct, a great tool indeed!

In addition:

Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse blood for themselves or for relatives are not silent bystanders in all this. They almost always take direct action themselves to avoid a transfusion. Most do not want transfusions and will do whatever they can to avoid them. They are active participants. This is an important point here, imo. We believed, we acted. How this can be translated into corporate responsibility, Watchtower corporate neglect etc., is hard for me to understand. It is the religious overseeing body, the GB, that is responsible for the blood doctrine not the corporation. Individual Jehovah's Witnesses follow the lead of their religious governing body not a corporation.

If we raised our children to refuse blood at all costs and if they follow through on what we taught them, we are to an extent responsible. Not responsible for their death but for acting in ignorance, for believing what others believed and taught us to believe as well. I truly believed. I would not have signed the blood cards and taught my children to refuse blood if I had not truly believed. I would have refused a blood transfusion for any of my children, I would have let them die. I truly believed.

Refusing blood is a religious belief, one in which the believer is an active participant and facilitator. The Bible said not to eat blood and we believed that transfusion was the same as eating the blood of a dead animal. There are many flaws with their blood doctrine but it was swallowed hook, line and sinker by almost all of us including the powers that be at Bethel. We acted on our beliefs.

The deaths of children due to the blood doctine are on the heads of all of us who believed, all of us who went to meetings and accepted the blood cards, all of us who gave talks or comments at the meetings citing the Biblical support the blood doctrine has, all of us who passively went along or worse disagreed but remained silent etc. I say this because the children and their parents saw a great crowd of people both locally and around the world who were, or seemed to be, in full agreement with the Jehovah's Witness blood doctrine, surely in their minds this added strong support for their own beliefs.

We were wrong. The Watchtower was wrong and so were we.

IW

little witch

In the US, there has been a case where a neo-nazi group gave public speeches, printed propaganda, and had rules for remaining a member. When some of the members killed a black man, the mother of the victim sued the org. and won. The court said they made their own rules, enforced them, and were responsible for the outcome.

The mother now owns the entire compound, and seized all of their assets....I wish I could remember the details, the name of the group and all, maybe someone else can help me fill in the blanks?

The Watchtower Society and Corporate Manslaughter

Share this